that's what's happening "today in the bay." head to our website for updates on local stories. >> right now nbc news has a special report for the impeachment inquiry, starting right now. have a great morning. we'll see you back here for sure tomorrow morning starting at 4:30. this is an nbc news special report, the impeachment hearings. here's lester holt and savannah guthrie. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the first public hearing on the impeachment of president donald trump today in washington with millions of americans watching. a key house committee will hear testimony on this question. did president trump abuse the powers of his office by pressuring a foreign country, ukraine, for his personal benefit to investigate a 2020 political rival, joe biden, and

did he improperly withhold vitally needed military aid and other support to increase that pressure? >> more than a dozen witnesses have testified behind closed doors in recent weeks, but just moments from now for the first time, two of those witnesses will answer questions in public. william taylor, america's top diplomat in ukraine, a west point graduate, decorated vietnam war veteran and career diplomat who has served under both republican and democratic presidents. george kent, also a career diplomat, who has served under presidents of both parties. >> it is an important new phase in the impeachment inquiry, and president trump's very tenure in office hangs in the balance. only twice before in american history has a president been impeached, and never before has a president been convicted by the senate and removed from office. >> it is going to be an interesting day, and here to help us navigate all of us,

nbc's chuck todd and andrea mitchell as well as former justice department prosecutor and legal analyst. we want to go to the hill first, jeff bennett, what's the scene there? >> reporter: savannah, good morning. democrats have hoped what they will be at the end of the day an ironclad impeachment against president trump. as you know, democrats control the committee which means they control the focus of these hearings and they also control the format. let's start with the focus because storytelling is important here as democrats bring public the case they've been building against president trump in prooifivate now for so two months. they'll begin by telling the story from the beginning and lay out what is a coordinated pressure campaign getting ukraine's leaders to open investigations that would be politically beneficial to president trump. they also control the format, as

i mentioned. this hearing will be unlike other congressional hearings in that after the witnesses are sworn in, after they deliver their opening statements, the top republican and top democrat on this committee will have 90 minutes to split between the both of them, which means they will pursue lines of inquiry at much greater length than any other sort of congressional hearing. i'm told house democrats expect this first hour to be a blockbuster, savannah. >> thank you very much. >> hallie jackson is on the the white house. hallie, what are the president's plans? will he be watching? >> reporter: i'm told he is in the white house holding meetings unrelated to this impeachment inquiry. it is showing the president is at work doing something else, if you will. that said, we know the president has been keyed in on this. just check his twitter. he's talking about what he describes as never trumpers who could be testifying. he said read the transcript of that call in july between him

and the ukranian leader that is at the center of this entire impeachment inquiry. at its core, when you step back, this is a president who truly doesn't want to be impeached. however, he and his white house are gearing up for the fight. i'm told the president sometimes relishes the fight that is ahead for him. the white house has set up a rapid response team here. even though he's not watching every single second, you know his staff is sending tweets and phone calls to get their message out. they will say, one, the process is fundamentally unfair and the president has done nothing wrong, and two, the president is doing other work and not focusing on impeachment. >> as we see our first witness enter the hearing room. chuck, it goes without saying, this is a historic moment. it also goes without saying this is a moment freighted with

politics, and the house speaker was very reluctant to get to what it is today. >> she is because she feared it would be what it is, the look of a partisan exercise. the hearings will be interesting to watch in this respect. the facts are actually no longer in dispute. in fact, the new republican defense is not to dispute the facts, it's to start to debate motive, start to debate what was his intent, and one thing that their focus is on is to say you don't have that incident, there was a direction, that the president directed him to do this, and i see we see mr. taylor right now. >> bill taylor, george kent by his side. i turn to andrea, who covered the state department for many, many years, and i'm sure has run into these two men in your line of work. sometimes they come in with the administration, their politicals, they call them, their career appointees. these are career officials, not

political appointees. >> these men are veterans. bill taylor, 40 years a diplomat. unimpeachable, no pun intended, and this is the opposite deep state that trump and other people and steve bannon were originally talking about. these are the people, as they come to order, will be very compelling. >> this is the first of the public hearings the committee will be holding as part of the house's impeachment inquiry. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess so there is an informed present. here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing. i will make an opening statement, and then ranking member nunez will have an opportunity to make a statement. we will go to written statements and then to questions. for audience members, we welcome you, and we respect your interest in being here. in turn we ask for your respect as we proceed with today's hearing. >> mr. chairman? >> it is the committee's intent to proceed without interruptions.

>> may i make a parliamentary inquiry? >> the gentleman will state the inquiry. >> mr. chairman, this is our first hearing under these new set of rules, house r. house resolution 660 gives you discretion to ask extended periods of up to 45 minutes each before other members are allowed to ask questions. if possible, we'd like to know the rules of engagement before we get started. have you made a decision yet as to how many 45-minute rounds you will allow yourself and the ranking member? >> i have not. as we informed the minority yesterday, we will see how the first period goes and how much material we're able to get through. at that point the chair will announce the period, if there is a period, of the second round, which may be up to 45 minutes, or we'll go straight to five-minute questions by members. for audience members, we welcome

you and respect your interest. we'll insist on decorum in the committee. i'll take all proper steps to make sure the committee is operating under house rules 660. with that i give my statement into the impeachment inquiry of donald j. trump, the 44th president of the united states. in 2014, russia invaded ukraine. to embrace the wish of the west and to rebuild pintutin's desir for a russian empire. 44 people died as they battled russian forces. president zelensky was elected president of ukraine to end the conflict and tackle corruption. he was a newcomer to politics and immediately sought to establish a relationship with ukraine's most powerful patron,

the united states. the questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether president trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite ukraine's interference in our elections, whether president trump sought official acts such as a white house meeting on ukraine's willingness to as in two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign. and if president trump did either, what is such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency. the matter is as simple and as terrible as that. our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency but the future of the presidency itself and what kind of conduct or misconduct the american people can come to expect of their commander in chief. there are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a president. while the founders did not

intend that impeachment be employed for mere dimfferences over policy, they also made the constitution a constitutional process that the congress must utilize as necessary. the facts in the inquiry are not severely contested. beginning in january of this year, the president's personal attorney rudy giuliani convinced him to investigate burisma and the bidens, since vice president joe biden was seen as a strong presidential challenger to trump. giuliani also promoted a debunked theory that it was ukraine, not russia, that's interfered in our election. it's been proven that russia, not ukraine, interfered in our election. but rudy giuliani considered

this as an aid to the president's reelection. rudy giuliani also smeared the employment of marie yavonovitch. he told her although she had done nothing wrong, the president had lost confidence in her. the stage was set for an irregular channel in which giuliani and others, including gordon sondland, a donor to the president's inauguration, could advance the president's personal and political interests. yavonovitch's replacement in kiev in ambassador bill taylor is a west point graduate and a vietnam veteran. as he began to better understand the scheme through the summer of 2019, he pushed back, informing deputy assistant secretary kent and others about a plan to condition u.s. government actions and funding on the performance of political favors by the ukranian government, favors intended for president

trump that would undermine our security and our elections. several key events in this scheme took place in the month of july. on july 10, ambassador sondland informed a group of u.s. and ukranian officials meeting at the white house that according to chief of staff mick mulvaney, a white house meeting desperately sought with president trump would only happen if ukraine started an investigation with the energy sector, which was meant to mean burisma and the bidens. ambassador volker ended the meeting and said he would not be, quote, part of the drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this, end quote. a week later, on july 18th, a representative of the office of management and budget, the white house agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference that mulvaney, at the direction of the president, was freezing nearly

$400 million in security assistance authorized and appropriated by congress in which the entirety of the u.s. national security establishment supported. one week after that, donald trump would have the now infamous july 25th phone call with ukranian president zelensky. during that call, trump complained that the u.s. relationship with ukraine had not been reciprocal. later zelensky thanks trump for his support in the area of defense and says ukraine is ready to purchase more javelins, an anti-tank weapon that was of more deterrence in military action. trump said, i would like you to do us a favor, though. trump then suggested that ukraine investigate the 2016 election theory and look into the bidens. neither of these investigations

was in the u.s. national interest. and neither was part of the official preparatory material for the call. both, however, were in donald trump's personal interest and in the interests of his 2020 reelection campaign. and the ukranian president knew about both in advance because sondland and others had been pressing ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, burisma and the bidens. after the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the national security council's top lawyer. the white house would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. in the weeks that followed, ambassador taylor learned new facts about a scheme that sondland, even sondland would describe as becoming more

insidious. taylor texted sondland, quote, are we now saying security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? as summer turned to fall, it kept getting more insidious, mr. sondland testified. mr. taylor, who took notes of his conversations, said ambassador told him in a september 1st phone call that everything was dependent on the public announcement of investigations, including security assistance. president trump wanted mr. zelensky in a public box. president trump is a businessman, sondland said later. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. in a sworn declaration after taylor's testimony, sondland would admit to telling ukranians

at a september 1st meeting in warsaw, quote, the presumption of u.s. aid would likely not occur until ukraine provided the anti-corruption statement we ever been discussing for many weeks. the president's chief of staff confirmed trump's efforts to coerce ukraine by withholding aid. when mick mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking. we do that all the time with foreign policy, he said. i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. that is going to happen. the video of that confession is plain for all to see. some have argued in the president's defense that the aid was ultimately released, and that is true. but only after congress began an investigation, only after the president's lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint, and

only after members of congress began asking uncomfortable questions about quid pro quos. a scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain a personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated. in fact, the security assistance had been delayed for so long, it would take another act of congress to ensure that it could still go out. and that other oval office meeting zelensky desperately sought, it still hasn't happened. although we have learned a great deal about these events in the past several weeks, there are still missing pieces. the president has instructed the state department and other agencies to ignore congressional subpoenas for documents. he has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. and he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies. these actions will force

congress to consider, as it did with president nixon, whether trump's obstruction of the constitutional duties of congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment. if the president can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be ir irrevokablely altered. that is not what the founders intended. and the prospects for further corruption and abuse of power in this administration or any other will be exponentially increased. this is what we believe the testimony will show. both as to the president's conduct and as to his obstruction of congress, the issue that we confront is the one posed by the president's acting chief of staff when he challenged americans to "get over it." if we find that the president of

the united states abused his power and invited foreign interference into our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts, a white house meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid, must we simply "get over it"? is this what americans should now expect from their president? if this is not impeachable conduct, what is? does the oath of office itself, requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so we become no monarchy, still have meaning? these are the questions we must ask and answer. without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and

without party favor and without prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. benjamin franklin was asked what kind of a country america was to become. a republican, he answered, if you can keep it. the fundamental issue raised into the inquiry of donald j. trump is, can we keep it? and i recognize representative marks. following the mueller report, the democrats made a last-ditch effort to convince the american people that president trump was corrupt.

after the spectacular implosion of the russia hoax on july 24th in which they spent years denouncing any republican who ever shook hands with a russian, on july 25th, they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is republicans' dealings with ukraine. in the blink of an eye, we're asked to simply forget about democrats on this committee, falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between president trump and russians. we should forget about them reading fabrications of trump/russia collusion from the steele dossier into the congressional record. we should also forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of trump from russian pranksters who pretended to be ukranian officials. we should forget about them leaking a false story to cnn

while he was still testifying to our committee claiming donald trump jr. was colluding with wikileaks. and forget the fact it makes them the last people on earth with credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents. and yet now here we are. we're supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of allegations, let anyone familiar with the democrats' scorched earth war against president trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. for example, after vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single republican. the witnesses deemed suitable for television by the democrats

were put through a closed door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the capitol where democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner. violating their own guidelines, democrats repeatedly named representative chalupa, who worked to collect dirt on the trump campaign, which she provided to the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign. the democrats rejected most of the republicans' witness requests, resulting in horrifically a one-sided process where the crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony does not support the democrats' absurd accusations. notably, they are trying to impeach the president for

inquiring about hunter biden's activities. yet they refuse our request to hear from biden himself. the whistleblower was acknowledged to have a bias against president trump, and his attorney touted a coup against the president and called for his impeachment just weeks after the election. at a prior hearing, democrats read out a fictitious phone call with president zelensky. they clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for their impeachment narrative, so they just made up a new one. and most egregiously, the staff of the democrats on this committee had direct discussions with the whistleblower before his or her complaint was submitted to the inspector general. republicans can't get a full account of these contacts because democrats broke their promise to have the whistleblower testify to this committee.

democrat members hid these contacts from republicans and then lied about them to the american people on national television. i've noted before the democrats have a long habit of accusing republicans of offenses they themselves are committing. let's recall for years they accused the trump campaign of colluding with russia when they themselves were colluding with russia by dispensing the steele dossier which relied on russian sources. now they accuse president trump of malfeasance in ukraine when they themselves are culpable. the democrats cooperated in ukranian election meddling and they defend biden's lavish position with a corrupt ukraine company, all while his father

served as vice president. despite this hypocrisy, the democrats are holding this impeachment scam. what is the full extent of the democrats' prior coordination with the whistleblower? and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with? second, what is the full extent of ukraine's election meddling against it is trump campaign? and third, why did burisma hire hunter biden, and what did he do for them, and did his position affect any u.s. government actions under the obama administration? these questions will remain outstanding because republicans were denied the right to call witnesses that know these answers. what we will answer today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the democrats. ambassador taylor and mr. kent, i'd like to welcome you here.

i'd like to congratulate you for passing the democrats' star chamber additions held in the basement of the capitol. it seems you agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to participate in a drama. but the main performance, a russia hoax, has ended, and you've been cast in the low-rent ukranian sequel. i'll conclude by noting the immense damage a politicized democracy has done to america's faith in government, which is implemented by the government. the civil service has decided that they, not the president, are really in charge. as we'll learn in these hearings, after expressing skepticism of foreign aid and foreign corruption in the campaign trail, president trump

outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption. officials alarm that the president's actions was typically based on secondhand, thirdhand and even fourthhand rumors and innuendo. they believed it was an outrage for the president to fire an ambassador, even though the president has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time. officials show the surprising lack of interest in the indications of ukranian election meddling that deeply concern the president at whose pleasure they serve. despite all their dissatisfaction with president trump's ukraine policy, the president approved the supply of weapons to ukraine. unlike the previous administration which provided blankets as defense against

invading russians. by undermining the president who they are supposed to be serving, the elements of the fbi, the department of justice, and now the state department have lost the confidence of millions of americans who believe that their vote should count for something. it will take years, if not decades, to restore faith in these institutions. this spectacle is doing great damage to our country. it's nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime. i yield back. >> today we are joined by ambassador william taylor and deputy secretary of state george kent. mr. kent has served our country for over half a century. he graduated at west point

before graduating in the top 1 point of his class. he led a rifle platoon in vietnam and earned a star medal and an air medal for valor. he worked at the department of energy as a staffer in the u.s. senate, as an adviser as well to the u.s. ambassador of nato. in the 1990s, ambassador taylor created assistance to europe in the foreign soviet union and later served in afghanistan, iraq, and worked on the middle east peace process. in 2006 president bush nominated him to ambassador of ukraine where he served until 2009 and then was appointed by president barack obama to be special coordinator for middle east transitions. ambassador taylor was serving as the executive vice president of the nonpartisan institute for peace when, in june 2019, secretary of state mike pompeo asked him to return to lead the

u.s. embassy in kiev as charse defair. ambassador kent serves in uh eurasian affairs overseeing ukraine and other countries. he has served over ukraine since 2007. he was deputy in the revolution. in 2017 and 2018, he served as deputy in kiev. mr. kent served and poland, and thailand. all witness depositions as part of this inquiry were unclassified in nature and all open hearings will also be at the unclassified level. any information that may touch on classified information will be addressed separately. congress will not tolerate any reprisal, threat of reprisal or

attempt to retaliate against any u.s. government official for testifying before congress, including you or any of your colleagues. if you would both rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. >> mr. chairman, before we hear from the witnesses, i have a parliamentary inquiry. >> the gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry. >> when can we anticipate a response to our november 9 letter requesting certain witnesses to be called? >> gentlewoman should be aware that three of the witnesses are scheduled for next week. >> those are your witnesses, mr. chairman. what about the additional six witnesses? >> the gentlewoman may inquire about additional witnesses or

make a request for additional witnesses following the witness testimony. >> and i have a point of order under h.res 660. >> state your order. >> will you be prohibiting witnesses from answering members' questions as you have in the closed door depositions? >> as the gentlewoman should know, she was present for depositions -- >> which i was. >> for some of them, yes. >> correct. >> the only time i prevented witnesses from answering questions, along with our counsel, was when it was apparent that members were seeking to out the whistleblower. we will do everything necessary to protect the whistleblower's identity, and i'm disturbed to hear members of the committee who have, in the past, voiced strong support for whistleblower protections, seek to undermine those protections by outing the whistleblower. >> mr. chairman, only one member and their staff on this committee has direct knowledge of the identity of the whistleblower. >> you asked a parliamentary inquiry and i am responding, or point of order and i am

responding. we will not permit the outing of the whistleblower, and questions along those lines, counsel will inform their clients not to respond to. if necessary, i will intervene. otherwise i want members to feel free to ask any questions they like. >> i'd like to make a motion. >> i'm sorry, members may ask any questions they like. the gentleman is not recognized. i'm responding to the gentlewoman's point of order. otherwise members will have the opportunity to ask any questions they like. congressman, you seek retribution for that? >> we seek a closed door deposition so the questions could be asked appropriately of the whistleblower by your side and our side may be asked, and i prefer that rather than it be your single decision that the committee speak to that decision rather than just the champl. >> i tha . >> it won't be my single

decision. we will entertain a motion to subpoena any witness, but after the witnesses have had an opportunity to testify. that motion will be an order but that motion will be suspended until after the testimony. >> just to ask a clarifying question, do you anticipate when we might vote on the ability to have the whistleblower in front of us, something you, the 435 members of congress, you are the only member who knows who that individual is, and your staff is the only staff of any member of congress who has had a chance to talk with that individual. we would like that opportunity. when might that happen in this proceeding today? >> first, the gentleman knows that is a false statement. i do not know the identity of the whistleblower and i'm determined to make sure that identity is protected. but as i said to mr. conaway, you will have an opportunity after the witnesses have testified to subpoena any witness and compel a vote. and with that i now recognize

the witnesses, and before i do, i want to just emphasize the microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. without objection your written statements will be made part of the record, and with that, deputy assistant secretary kent, you are recognized for your opening statement. ambassador taylor, you are recognized immediately thereafter for your opening statement. >> good morning. my name is george kent, and i am the deputy assistant secretary of state for eastern europe and the caucuses. i have served proudly as a nonpartisan career foreign service officer for more than 27 years under five presidents, three republican and two democrat. as i mentioned in my opening comments last month in the closed door deposition, i represent the third generation of my family to have chosen a career in public service and sworn the oath of office that all u.s. public servants do in defense of our constitution.

indeed, there has been a george kent sworn to defend the constitution continuously for nearly 60 years, ever since my father reported to annapolis for his summer. after graduating first in his naval academy class in 1965, the year best known for heisman winning staubach, my father served 45 years during the height of the cold war. five great uncles served honorably in world war ii. in particular, tom taggert was stationed in the philippines at the time of the attack on pearl harbor. he survived the death march and three and a half years in a japanese war camp unbroken. he returned to service as an air of service judge advocate, unhoup holding the rule of law until his death.

i appear before you as a fact witness ready to answer all the questions about the events and developments examined in this inquiry. to the best of my ability and recollection, subject to the limits placed on me by the law and this process, i will begin with some opening comments on key principles at the heart of what brings me before you today. to wit, principled public service and enduring national interest in the place of ukraine and national security interests. for the past five years, we have focused our united efforts across the atlantic to support ukraine and its fight for the cause of freedom, and the birth of a country free from russian dominion and the legacy of soviet institutions and post-soviet behavior. as i stated in my closed door deposition last month, you don't step into the public arena of active diplomacy in active pursuit of principled u.s. interests without expecting

vigorous pushback, including personal attacks. such attacks came from the russians, their proxies and corrupt ukranians. that tells me our efforts were hitting their mark. it was unexpected and most unfortunate, however, to watch some americans, including those who allied themselves with corrupt ukranians in pursuit of private agendas launch attacks on dedicated public servants advancing interest on ukraine. in my opinion, those attacks undermined u.s. and ukranian national interests and damaged our critical bilateral relationship. the united states has very clear national interests at stake in ukraine. ukraine's success is very much in our national interests. and the way we have defined our national interests broadly in europe for the past 75 years. after world war ii, u.s. leadership furthered far-sided policies like the marshall plan

and the creation of a rules-based international order, protected by the collective security provided by nato, western europe recovered and thrived. after the carnage of world war ii, notwithstanding the shadow of the iron curtain. europe's prosperity contributed to our security and prosperity. support of ukraine's success also fits squarely in our strategy for central and eastern europe since the fall of the wall 30 years ago this past week. a europe truly whole-free and at peace, the entirety of my service career is not possible without a ukraine whole free and at peace, including crimea and the donbass, territories currently held by russia. trump's national security strategy makes clear the global

strategic challenge before us with rivals such as russia and china and the need to compete for positive influence without taking countries for granted. in that sense, ukraine has been on the front lines, not just of russia's conventional war in eastern europe since 2014 and its broader campaign of maligned influence, but of the greater geopolitical challenges now facing the united states. ukraine's popular resolution of dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-russian leadership to flee to moscow. after that, russia invaded ukraine, occupying 7% of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of texas for the united states. at that time ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of collapse. ukranian civil society answered the challenge. they formed volunteer battalions of citizens, including technology professionals and medics. they crowd sourced funding for

their own weapons, body armor and supplies. they were the 21st century ukranian equivalent of our own minutemen of 1776, buying time for a regular army to reconstitute. since then, more than 13,000 ukranians have died on ukrainia soil defending their territory and sovereignty from russian aggression. ukrai ukranian support by americans has been critical in this regard. they had the help of friends since 1776. after the outing of john paul jones' navy, america has proudly given billions of dollars in desperately needed security assistance to ukraine. these funds increase ukraine's strength and ability to fight russia's aggression.

ultimately ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the united states within nato. similar to von steuben training col colonials in valley forge, they helped write for the next generation as von steuben did in the first. we have a front row seat in the russian war of the 21st century, giving insight to our own security. this year in 2019, ukranian citizens passed the political torch to a new generation, one that came of age not in the final years of the soviet union but in an independent ukraine. presidential and parliamentary elections swept out much of ukraine's previous governing elite and seated 41-year-old president zelensky, a cabinet

with an average age of 39, and a parliament with the average age of 41. at the heart of that is a thirst for justice, because there cannot be dignity without justice. without a reformed judicial sector that delivers justice with integrity for all, ukranian society will remain unsettled. foreign investors, including american investors, will not bring the great investment needed to ensure that ukraine's long-term prosperity is secured. this is why the principled promotion of the rule of law and institutional integrity is so necessary to our strategy for a successful ukraine. it is also true for other former captive nations still recovering from the ashes of soviet and communist misrule. it is why acting inconsistently with the core principle of the rule of law comes at great peril. i am grateful to all members of congress and staffers, including many of you sitting here today,

who have traveled to ukraine in the past five years and appropriated billions of dollars in assistance in support of our primary policy goals. those funds increase ukraine's ability to fight russian aggression in the defense and cyber information spheres, and they also empower state institutions and civil society to undertake systemic reforms and tackle corruption. i believe all of us can be proud of our efforts in ukraine over the past five years, even though much remains to be done. and by all of us, i mean those of us in the legislative and executive branches in both parties, the embassy security working out of kiev, with ukranians in government, military and civil society, and our transatlantic partners. we cannot let our resolve waiver with so much at stake. my prior deposition covered a lot of ground over ten hours.

here are the main ten themes from my testimony. i outlined my experience with longstanding u.s. interest in supporting anti-corruption efforts in ukraine. this work gave me a front row seat to problematic activities by successive prosecutors in ukraine. for many issues this committee is investigating, my knowledge and understanding is sometimes firsthand and sometimes comes from others in specific meetings. this is how one learns to carry out his or her job response inl -- responsibilities. i will make it clear when my answer is from personal knowledge or gleaned from others. ukraine focused on building so the ukranian government can effectively prosecute and judge alleged criminal activities

using appropriate methods, that is, to create and follow the rule of law. that means if there were criminal nexuses or activity in the united states, u.s. law enforcement should pursue the case. if we think there has been a criminal act overseas that violates u.s. law, we have ways to address that. it could be through agents assigned overseas or through treaty mechanisms, such as the assistance treaty. as a general principle, i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. the pervasive and longstanding problem of corruption in ukraine included exposure to a situation involving the energy company burisma. the primary concern of u.s. government in 2014 was burisma's

owner whose frozen assets abroad we had attempted to recover on the u.s.'s behalf. in 2016 i raised questions with the deputy general about why aid had been closed after we had accepted bribes in the case. after a brief call with the office of the vice president in 2015, i raised my concern that hunter biden's status as a board member could create the perception of a conflict of interest. let me be clear, however, i did not witness any effort from a u.s. official for scrutiny. in fact, we reinstituted an investigation of burisma's founder as well as holding the prosecutors who closed the case to account. over the course of 2017 and 2018, i became more aware of

rudy giuliani and others, as well as lev parnas and igor fruman to smear corruption in kiev. these were some of the same i had encountered. they are now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct, including u.s. diplomats, ukranian anti-corruption officials and foreign-minded civil society groups in ukraine. during the late spring and summer of 2018, i became alarmed as those efforts bore fruit. they led to the ouster of ambassador yavonovitch and led to efforts to establish rapport with ukraine. in august it became clear to me that yavonovitch's efforts to make investigations were now under investigation by ukraine, leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting.

there has always been conditionality placed on ukraine. conditions include anti-corruption reforms as well as meeting larger stability goals and safety necessities. the larger monetary fund does the same thing. congress in the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in ukraine security assistance initiative. regarding my testimony today, i will do your best to answer your questions, questions that will involve incidents and documents that span a number of years. i may be limited by three considerations. first, the state department has collected all materials in response to the september 27th subpoena that may contain facts relevant to my testimony. i have no such documents or materials with me today. i will thus do my best to answer as accurately, completely and truthfully as i can to the best of my recollection. second, as this committee knows, from deposition testimony, throughout this process there have been concerns that questions may be asked about

classified information. we have asked the state department for guidance related to the public release of my deposition, and the state department has declined to provide any. so if i'm asked a question today that i believe may implicate classified information, i will respectfully decline to answer in this public forum. third, there may be questions focusing on the identity of people in the intelligence community. these questions were redacted from my deposition transcript. if such a question arises today, i will follow my counsel's advice and decline to answer. i would like to conclude my opening remarks with an observation about some of my fellow public servants who have come under personal attacks. ambassador yavonovitch, lieutenant colonel vindman and dr. hill, at least one of whom is going to appear before this body in the coming days. mosha, alex and fiona were born abroad before their family or they themselves personally chose to emigrate to the united states. they all made the professional choice to serve the united states as public officials,

helping shape our national security policy toward russia in particular. and we and our national security are the better for it. in this sense, they are the 21st century heirs of security policy who were also born abroad. my former professor and his immigrant, henry kissinger. the yavonovitchs and vindmans fled oppression for a stronger america. those transatlantic ties go back to the very founding of our republic. our 18th century independent would not have occurred if not for the german born von steuben and others to come to the new world and fight or our freedom and the birth of a country free of imperial dominion. it is my pleasure to sit next to

my former boss, ambassador taylor, today, and it is my honor to serve all these patrons. thank you. >> thank you. ambassador taylor? >> mr. chairman, i'm appearing today at the committee's request to provide my perspective on events that are the subject of the committee's inquiry. i want to emphasize at the outset that while i'm aware that the committee has requested my testimony as part of impeachment proceedings, i am not here to take one side or the other. or to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings. my sole purpose is to provide facts as i know them about the inference in question and my views of ukraine and the united states. my background has been privileged to serve our country for more than 50 years. starting as a cadet at west point, as you have mentioned,

mr. chairman, i was an infantry officer for six years in vietnam, then at the department of energy, then as a member of a senate staff, then at nato, then with a state department here and abroad and afghanistan, iraq, jerusalem and ukraine. i retired from the state department in 2009 to join the united states institute of peace. i'm neither a career member of the foreign service nor of the civil service. i am nonpartisan and have been appointed to my positions by every president from president reagan to president trump. let me summarize my main points. first, ukraine is a strategic partner of the united states, important for the security of our country, as well as europe. ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive russia. second, even as we sit here today, the russians are attacking ukranian soldiers in their own country and have been

for the last four years. i saw this on the front line last week. the day i was there, a ukranian soldier was killed and four were wounded. third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to ukraine's defense and to the protection of the soldiers i met on the front line last week. it demonstrates to ukranians and russians that we are ukraine's reliable strategic partner. it is clearly in our national interest to deter further russian aggression. and finally, as the committee is aware, i wrote that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the united states would be crazy. i believed that then, and i believe it now. let me tell you why. on may 28th of this year, i met with secretary of state mike pompeo who asked me to rejoin the state department and return to kiev to lead our embassy in

ukraine. it was and is a critical time for u.s.-ukraine relations. i had served as ambassador of ukraine from 2006 to 2009. having been nominated by george w. bush and in the intervening ten years had stayed engaged with ukraine. across the responsibilities i have had in public service, ukraine is the highlight. and so secretary pompeo's offer to return as chief of mission was compelling. since i left ukraine in 2009, the did you not had continued to turn toward the west. but in 2013, vladimir putin was so threatened by the prospect of ukraine joining the european union that he tried to bribe the ukranian president. this triggered mass protests in the winter of 2013 that drove that president to flee to russia in february of 2014, but not before his forces killed 100

ukranian protesters in central kiev. days later, mr. putin invaded crimea, holding a sham referendum at the point of russian army rifles. the russians have certainly claimed that 97% voted to join russia. in early april, putin sent his army and security forces into southeastern ukraine to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments in what we know as dombass. you can see it in the eastern portion of the country on the map. 14,000 ukranians have died in the war in dombass and more die each week. in july 2014, these russian-led forces in dombass shut down a civilian airliner en route from amsterdam to malaysia, killing all 298 people on board. we, the europeans and most of the west imposed economic sanctions and kicked the

russians out of the g-8. beginning in 2014, we and nato began to provide military assistance to ukraine's armed forces in the form of military advice, equipment and weapons. it is this security assistance that is at the heart of the controversy that we are discussing today. the pro-russian president who was run out of kiev in 2014 had let the russian armed forces deteriorate to the point of ruin. in response to the russian invasion, the new ukranian authorities with an amazing outpouring of support from regular ukranian people rebuilt the army nearly from scratch, spending more than 5% of ukranian gdp on defense since the war started. the whole ukranian nation fiercely responded to the russian attack. the nation united like never before. a ragtag army developed into a strong fighting force, and the united states played a vital role.

since 2014, you in congress have provided more than $1.6 billion in military assistance to ukraine. the security systems provide small unit training at an army base near aviv in the western part of the country. it provides ambulances, night division devices, counter battery radar, navy ships and finally weapons. the security system demonstrates our commitment to resist aggression and defend freedom. during the 2014 to 2016 period, i was serving outside of government, and joined two other former ambassadors to ukraine and urging obama officials at the state department, defense department and other agencies to provide lethal defensive weapons to ukraine in order to deter further russian aggression. i also supported much stronger sanctions on russia. i was pleased when the trump administration provided javelin anti-tank missiles and enacted

stronger sanctions. i have to say i cared about ukraine's future and the important u.s. interests there. so when secretary pompeo asked me to go back to kiev, i wanted to say easy decision. the former ambassador has been treated poorly caught in a political web in kiev and washington. i felt those problems were still present. i consulted both my wife and respected republican official who has been a mentor. i will tell you my buy, in no uncertain terms, strongly opposed the idea. the mentor counsel, if your country ask you to do something you do it if you can be effective. i can be effective only if the u.s. policy and strong support for uk and strong support and technical assistance were to continue. if i had the backing of the secretary of state to implement that policy, i worried about

what i had heard concerning the role of rudy guiliani, who had made several controversial statements about ukraine and u.s. policy toward the country. sup during my meeting with secretary pompeo on may 28th, i made clear if the policy towards ukraine changed he would not want me posted there and i could not stay. he assured me the policy of strong support for ukraine would continue and he would support me in defending that policy. with that understanding i agreed to go back to kiev because recoy official position was in effect, acting ambassador to ukraine. i returned to kiev june 17th carrying an original letter president trump signed in the

day i met with the secretary. in that letter president trump congratulated president zelensky to his election and invited him to a meeting in the oval office. once i i arrived in kiev i discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances. first, the encouraging, president zelensky was reforming ukraine in a hurry. he appointed reformist ministers and supported long stalled anti-corruption legislation. he took quick executive action including opening ukraine's anti-corruption court with a new parliament majority from snap elections, president zelensky changed the ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from deputies, the source of raw deception in two decades. the excitement was palpable. a new ukraine finally breaking

from its corrupt post soviet past. yet, i found a confusing unusual arrangement to making u.s. policy towards ukraine. there appeared to be two u.s. policies and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. as acting ambassador i had the authority over the regular informal policies to support against russian invasion and help defeat corruption. my colleague, deputy assistant secretary of state, george kent, and our colleagues at the national security council were my main points of contact in washington in this regular channel. this channel is formerly responsible for formulating and overseeing the implementation of u.s. policy with respect to ukraine, a policy that has consistently enjoyed strong bipartisan support in congress and all administration since ukraine's independence from russia in 1991. at the same time, however, i

encountered an irregular informal channel of u.s. policy making with respect to ukraine. unaccountable to congress, a channel that included then special envoy kurt volker, u.s. ambassador to the european union gordon sondland. secretary of energy, rick perry, white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, and as i sequentially learned, mr. guiliani. i was clearly in the regular channel but i was also in the irregular one to the extent ambassadors volcker and sondland included me in certain conversations. although this irregular channel was well-connected in washington it operated mostly outside of state official department channels. irregular channel began when ambassador volcker and sondland and secretary perry and saturday ron johnson briefed president trump on may 23rd upon their return from president zelensky's inauguration. the delegation was as

enthusiastic as i would soon become about the new ukranian president, and urged president trump to meet with him early on to cement the u.s.-ukraine relationship. from what i understood from the participants, president trump did not share their enthusiasm for a meeting with president zelensky. when i arrived in kiev, the actions of both regular and irregular channels of foreign policy appeared to serve the same goal a strong u.s.-ukraine partnership. it became clear to me by august that the channels had diverged in their objective. as this occurred i became increasingly concerned. in late june, both channels were trying to facilitate a visit by president zelensky to the white house for a meeting with president trump which president trump promised in his congratulatory letter of may 29th.

ukranians were clearly eager for that to happen. in my subsequent communications with ambassador volcker and sondland they related to me the president wanted to hear from zelensky before scheduling the meeting in the oval office. it was not clear to me what this meant. june 27th, ambassador sondland told me in a phone conversation, president zelensky needed to make clear to president trump he president zelensky was not standing in the way of investigations. i sensed something odd when ambassador sondland told me on june 28th he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with president zelensky later that day. ambassador sondland, rick perry and i were on this call. ambassador sondland said he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as

they added president zelensky to the call. before president zelensky joined the call, ambassador volcker told the u.s. participants they planned to be explicit with the president zelensky on july 2nd and would make it clear what it would fake to get the white house meeting. i did not understand what it meant but he said president trump wanted to see rule of law and transparency and cooperation on investigations to get to the bottom of things. once president zelensky joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy and the war in donbass. president zelensky said he looked forward to the white house visit president trump offered in his may 29th letter. by mid-july it was becoming clear to me the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditions on the investigations

of burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections. it was also clear this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel i come to understand was guided by mr. guiliani. in a regular nsc security video conference call on july 18th, i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget say there was a hold on security assistance to ukraine but could not say why. toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call, a person off screen, said she was from omb and her boss instructed her not to approve any additional spending on security assistance to ukraine until further notice. i and others sat in astonishment. ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of u.s. support. all that the omb staff person said was the directive had come

from the president to the chief of staff of omb. in an instance i realized one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened, the regular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of long standing u.s. policy. there followed a series of nsa led agency meeting starting at the staff level and quickly reaching the level of cabinet secretaries. at every meeting the unanimous conclusion was it should be lifted. and at one point the department offered to perform and analysis. within a day the state department came back with the fact that the assistance was effective and should be resumed. my understanding was the secretaries of defense and state, the cia director and national security advisor sought a joint meeting with the president to convince him to release the hold but such a meeting was hard to schedule and the hold lasted well into september.

on july 9th, a phone call for senior director for european and russian affairs, fiona hill and director of european affairs, lieutenant colonel alex vindman at the nsc, tried to assure me that they were not aware of any official change in u.s. policy towards ukraine, omb's announcement not withstanding. they did confirm the hold for security assistance on ukraine came from chief of staff mick mulvaney, who maintain as skeptical view of ukraine. in the same july 19th phone call they gave me an account of a july 10th meeting with ukrainian and american officials at the white house. they told me part way through the meeting ambassador sondland had connected investigations with an oval office meeting for president zelensky which so irritated then national security advisor john bolton he abruptly ended the meeting telling dr. hill and lieutenant colonel vindman they should have nothing

to do with domestic politics. he also directed dr. hill to brief the lawyers. dr. hill said ambassador bolton referred to this deal as this is a drug deal after the july 10th meeting, ambassador bolton opposed a call from president zelensky and president trump out of concern it would be a disaster. needless to say the ukrainians in the meeting were confused. ambassador bolton and regular policy making channel wanted to talk about security, energy and reform. ambassador sondland wanted to talk about the connection between the white house meeting and ukrainian investigations, from the irregular channel. during our july 19th call dr. hill informed me ambassador volcker met with guiliani to discuss ukraine. this caught me by surprise. the next day i asked aurmbassad volcker about that meeting and received no response. i began to sense these two

separate decision making channels, regular and irregular, were separate and at odds. later that day, i received text messages on a three-way what's app conversation with ambassadors volcker and sondland a record of which provided by ambassador volcker. ambassador sondland said a call between president trump and president zelensky would take place soon. ambassador volcker said what was most important was any investigation and address certain personnel issues if there any. the next day, july 20th i had a phone conversation with ambassador sondland while on a train from paris to london. he said he recommended president zelensky, he used the phrase "i will leave no stone unturned" with regard to investigations when president zelensky spoke

with president trump. also on july 20th, i had a phone conversation with president zelensky's national security advisor who emphasized president zelensky did not want to be used as an instrument in a u.s. reelection campaign. the next day i texted both ambassadors volcker and sondland about president zelensky's concern. on july 25th, president trump and president zelensky had a long awaited phone conversation, even though i was acting ambassador and scheduled to meet with ambassadors the following day i received no read-out from the white house. issuing a short cryptic summer during a previous summary, ambassador told me he was happy

with the call but did not elaborate and talked about the face-to-face meeting was asked about by president zelensky with president trump we could give him no firm answer. after that we traveled to northern donbass on the line of contact. the ambassador thanked us for security assistance. i was aware the assistance was on hold and made me uncomfortable. ambassador volcker and i could see the hostile russian led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact. russian led forces continued to kill ukrainians in the war one or two a week. more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without u.s. assistance. although i spent the morning of july 26th with president zelensky and other ukrainian officials the first summary i

heard was during a phone call with tim morrison, dr. hill's replacement on july 28th. mr. morrison told me the call could have been better and president trump suggested president zelensky for his staff meet with mr. guiliani, and attorney general william barr. i did not see any official read-out of the call until it was publicly released on september 25th. by august, i was becoming more concerned. on august 16th, i exchanged text messages with ambassador volcker and learned a senior advisor to president zelensky asked the united states submit an official request for investigation into burisma's alleged violations into ukrainian law, if that is what the united states desired. a formal u.s. request to the ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law

struck me as improper and i recommended to ambassador volcker that we stay clear, to find out the legal aspects of the question, however, i gave him the name of a deputy assistant general whom i thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a u.s. request for a foreign investigation. by mid-august, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that i could discern, i was beginning to fear the long standing u.s. policy of support for ukraine was shifting. i called state department counselor olrich to discuss this on august 21st. he said he was not aware of a change policy but would check on the status of assistance. my concern escalated during a phone call with morrison and i asked him about the policy on ukraine and he responded, it remains to be seen. he also told me during this call

that the president doesn't want to provide any assistance at all. that was extremely troubling to me, as i had told secretary pompeo in may if the policy of strong support for ukraine were to change i would have to resign. based on my call with mr. morrison, i was preparing to do so. just days later, on august 27th, ambassador bolton arrived in kiev and met with president zelensky. during their meeting, security assistance was not discussed. as far as i knew ukrainians were not aware of the hold until august 29th. i on the other hand was all too aware of and still troubled by the hold. near the end of ambassador bolton's visit i asked to meet him privately during which i expressed to him my serious concern of military assistance to ukraine while they were defending their country from russian aggression. ambassador bolton recommended i send a first person cable to

secretary pompeo directly relaying my concerns. i wrote and transmitted such a cable on august 29th describing the folly i saw in withholding military aid to ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in this east and when russia was watching closely to gage the level of american support for the ukrainian government. the russians, as i said in my deposition, would love to see the humiliation of president zelensky at the hands of the americans. i told the secretary that i could not and would not defend such a policy. although i received no specific response, i heard that soon there after the secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting a at the white house focused on security assistance for ukraine. the same day i sent my cable, i was asked about the security concern and the hold on the white house had just been made public that day in a political

story. at that point, i was embarrassed i could give him no explanation why it was withheld. it had still not occurred to me the hold on security assistance could be related to the investigations. that, however, would change. on september 1st, just three days after my cable to secretary pompeo, president zelensky met vice president pence at a bilateral meeting in warsaw. president trump planned to travel to warsaw but at the last minute cancelled because of hurricane dorian. hours before the pence-zelensky meeting i contacted them to let them know the delay was an all or nothing proposition in the sense if the white house did not lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year, september 30th, the funds would expire and ukraine would receive nothing. i was hopeful at the bilateral meeting or shortly there after the white house would lift the hold but this was not to be. on the evening of september 1st

i received a read-out of the pens-zelensky meeting over the phone from mr. morrison he told me president zelensky opened the meeting immediately asking the vice president about the security cooperation. the vice president did not respond substantively but said he would talk to president trump that night. the vice president did say president trump wanted the europeans to do more to support ukraine and he wanted the ukrainians to too more to fight corruption. during the same phone call with mr. morrison he described a conversation mr. sondland had with mr. yermach. he told him that the security assistance money would not come until president zelensky committed to pursue the burisma investigation. i was alarmed by what mr. morrison told me about the

sondland yermach conversation and concerned about the attorney general committing to pursue the investigations opposed to president zelensky. this was the first time i had heard that the security assistance, not just the white house meeting, was conditioned on the investigations. very concerned on that same day, september 1st, i sent ambassador sondland a text message asking if we are saying the security assistance are canada onditione the investigations. ambassador sondland asked me to call him i did. during that phone call, ambassador sondland said president trump wants him to ask president zelensky to state publicly he will investigate burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election. ambassador sondland now told me he now recognized he had made a

mistake by earlier telling ukrainian officials only a white house meeting was dependent on the investigations. in fact, ambassador sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement including security assistance. he said president trump wanted president zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. the same september 1st call i told ambassador sondland president trump should have more respect for another head of state and that what he described was not in this interest of either president trump or president zelensky. at that point, i asked ambassador sondland to push back on president trump's demand. ambassador sondland pledged to try. i suggested the possibility that ukrainian prosecutor general, rather than president zelensky would make a statement about the investigations potentially in coordination with attorney general barr's probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections.

the next day, september 2nd, mr. morrison called to inform me mr. donnylook asked him to come to talk about warsaw and he asked him about the possible support for ukraine. he related to me the inability of any ukrainian officials to respond about security assistance was troubling them. i was experiencing the same tensions in my dealings with the ukrainians including a meeting i had had with the defense minister that day. on september 5th, i accompanied senators johnson and murphy during their visit to kiev. when we met with president zelensky, his first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance. my recollection of meeting is both senators stressed bipartisan support for ukraine

in washington was ukraine's most important strategic asset and president trump zelensky should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into domestic politics. i had been making and continued to make this position to all my ukrainian contacts. the odd push to make president zelensky publicly commit to investigations of barisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the united states was undercut by the irregular efforts led by mr. guiliani. two days later, september 7th, i had a conversation with mr. morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between ambassador sondland and president trump and he said he had a sinking feeling after learning about this conversation from ambassador sondland. according to mr. morrison, president trump told ambassador sondland he was not asking for a

quid pro quo. president trump did insist that president zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of biden in 2016 election interference. and that president zelensky should want to do this himself. mr. morrison said he told ambassador bolton and nsc lawyers of this phone call between president trump and ambassador sondland. the following day on september 8th, ambassador sondland and i spoke on the phone. he confirmed he had talked to president trump as i suggested a week earlier but president trump was adamant president zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. president trump said it was not a quid pro quo. i believe this was the same conversation between ambassador sondland and president trump mr. morrison described to me on september 7th. ambassador sondland also said that he had talked to president

zelensky and mr. yurmach, and had told them although this was not a quid pro quo if president zelensky did not clear things up in public we would be at a stalemate. i understood a stalemate to mean ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance. this conversation concluded with president zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on cnn. shortly after that call with ambassador sondland i expressed my strong reservation is in a text message to ambassador sondland, stating my nightmare is the day the ukrainians give the interview and don't get the assistance. the russians love it and i quit. and i was serious. the next day, september 9th, i said to ambassador sondland and volcker the message to ukrainians and russians we send to security assistance is key. with the hold we have already

shaken their faith in us. i also said i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. ambassador sondland responded about five hours lart i was incorrect about president trump's intentions. the president has been crystal clear, no quid pro quos of any kind. during our call on september 8th, ambassador sondland tried to explain to me president trump is a businessman. when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. ambassador volcker used the same language several days together when we were together at a strategy conference. i argued to both the explanation made no sense. ukrainians did not owe president trump anything and holding up security assistance for political reasons was crazy on

september 9th. finally, on september 11th, i learned the hold had been lifted and security assistance would be provided. i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted. the next day i personally conveyed the news to president zelensky and the ukrainian farm minister. i again reminded mr. yurmoch for the high strategic value for the importance of ukraine and not getting involved in other countries elections. ambassador sondland told me president zelensky already agreed to do a cnn interview and he would make a statement regarding investigations that would have played into u.s. politics. i sought to confirm through mr. donnylook that he was not going to give such a statement to the media. i noticed during a meeting on september 13th at president zelensky's office mr. yurmach looked uncomfortable in response

to the question. i asked mr. donnylook to confirm there would be no cnn interview which he did. september 25th, in new york city at the unassembly session, the president met him face-to-face. the united states gave ukrainians virtually no notice of the release and they were livid. although this was the first time i had seen details of president trump's july 25th phone call with president zelensky in which he mentioned vice president biden, i had come to understand well before then that investigations was a term ambassadors volcker and sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to investigations of burisma and the bidens. last friday, a member of my staff told me of events that

occurred on july 26th. while ambassador volcker and i visited the front, a member of my staff accompanied ambassador sondland and ambassador sondland met with mr. yurmach. following that meeting in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, ambassador sondland called president trump and told him of his meetings in kiev. a member of my staff could hear president trump on the phone asking ambassador sondland and the investigations. ambassador sondland told president trump the ukrainians were ready to move forward. following the call with president trump, a member of my staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought about ukraine. ambassador sondland responded president trump cares more about the investigations of biden which guiliani was pressing for. at the time i gave my deposition october 22nd i was not aware of this information. i'm including it here for completeness. as the committee knows i reported this information

through counsel to the state department's legal advisor as well as to counsel for both the majority and minority of this committee. it is my understanding the committee is following up on this matter. mr. chairman, i recognize this is a rather lengthy recitation of the events of the past few month, told from my vantage point in kiev. i also recognize the importance of the matters you're committee is investigating. i hope this chronology will provide some framework in your investigations. as i mentioned in my october 22nd deposition the information in quotes in my testimony are based on my best recollection as well as a review of my personal notes. ukraine is important to the security of the united states. the largest country in europe by land mass, ukraine is a young democracy struggling to join

europe and ally itself with the united states. it has been violently attacked by russia which continues to arm against ukraine to this day. if we believe in the principle of the sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and allies depends, if we believe nations get to decide on their own economic, political and security alliances we must support ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. russian aggression cannot stand. republican and democratic administrations over three decades have been generous with assistance funding both civilian and military and political support. with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, congress has imposed harsh sanctions on russia for invading and occupying ukraine. mr. chairman, there are two ukraine storiesda. the first is the one we're discussing this morning, that you have been hearing about for the past two weeks.

it's a rankorrous story about whistle-blowers, mr. guiliani, quid pro quos, corruption and interference in elections. in this story, ukraine is merely an object. there's another story, bipartisan one. in this second story, ukraine is the subject. this one is about young people in a young nation struggling to break free of its past hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new ukraine, proud of its independence from russia, eager to join western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life. this story describe as nation developing an inclusive democratic nationalism not unlike what we in america, in our best moments, feel about our diverse country, less concerned about what language we speak, what religion, if any, we practice, where our parents and grandparents came from, more

concerned about building a new country. i'm now looking forward to your questions. >> i thank you both for your testimony and i now recognize myself and majority counsel for 45 minutes of questions. >> mr. chairman -- >> ambassador taylor, i'd like to begin by following up on something you have disclosed today and you disclosed earlier to both majority and minority. it is new information for the knee. you said in your testimony one of your staff was present with ambassador sondland on the day after the july 25th phone call, is that right? >> that's correct, mr. chairman. >> and as your staff related the event to you, your staff member could overhear mr. sondland on the phone, the president on the phone with mr. sondland, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the president must have been speaking loud enough on the phone, this was a cell phone, i take it? >> a cell phone.

>> the president must have been speaking loud enough for your staff member to overhear this? >> it was. >> and what your staff member could overhear was president trump asking ambassador sondland about quote the investigations, is that right? >> that's correct. >> i think you testified also that you had come to understand that the term "investigations" is a terms ambassador sondland and volcker used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections and to the investigations of burisma and the bidens, is that correct? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> your staff member overhears the president asking about the investigations, meaning burisma and the bidens in 2016, and ambassador sondland told president trump that the ukrainians were ready to move forward? >> he did. >> i think you said after the call, when your staff asked ambassador sondland what president trump thought of ukraine, his response was

president trump cares more about the investigations of biden, is that right? >> and burisma, yes, sir. >> and i take it the import of that is he cares more about that than he does about ukraine? >> yes, sir. >> during your testimony, ambassador taylor, you also said more ukrainians would undoubtedly die without u.s. assistance. why is that? >> mr. chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. one of the components of that assistance is counter-battery radar, another component are sniper weapons. these weapons and this assistance allows the ukrainian

military to deter further incursions by the russians against ukrainian territory. if that further incursion, further aggression were to take place, more ukrainians would die. it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide it's also -- gives the ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in donbass, negotiating with the russians. this also is a way that would reduce the numbers of ukrainians who would die. >> i take it if the provision of u.s.-military assistance would save ukrainian lives any delay in that assistance would also cost ukrainian lives, is that true? >> mr. chairman, it's hard to draw any direct lines between

any particular element of security assistance and any particular death on the battlefield. it is certainly true that that assistance had enabled ukrainian armed forces to be effective and defer and to be able to take counter measures to the attacks that the russians had. >> i think you said that ukrainian soldier lost their life while you were visiting donbass? >> we keep very careful track of the casualties. i noticed on the next day the information that we got that one was killed, four soldiers were wounded on that day. >> indeed, ukrainians lose their lives every week? >> every week. >> i think you also testified russia was watching closely to gage the level of american support for the ukrainian government. why is that significant. this is significant, mr. chairman, because the ukrainians, in particular, under

this new administration, are eager to end this war. they're eager to end it in a way that the russians leave their territory. these negotiations, like all negotiations, are difficult. ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, or at least more strength than they now have. part of that strength, part of the ability of the ukrainians to negotiate against the russians with the russians for an end to the war in donbass depends on the united states and other international support. if we withdraw or suspend or threatton withdraw our security assistance, that's a message to the ukrainians, but it's at least as your question indicates, mr. chairman, to the russians, who are looking for any sign of weakness or any signs we are withdrawing our support for ukraine.

>> when the ukrainians learned of the suspension of the military aid, either privately, or when others learn publicly, the russians would be learning also, and they would take that as a lack of robust u.s. support for ukraine? is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> that would weaken ukraine in negotiating an end to the war in donbass? >> it would. >> people watching, i'm sure, are interested how military assistance and support for ukraine affects ukraine interested. how does this affect our national security? i think you said that if we believe in a principle of sovereignty of nations where countries get to determine their own economic political and security alliances we have to support ukraine in its fight. that the kind of aggression we

see by russia can't stand. how is it important to american national security that we provide for a robust defense of ukraine sovereignty? >> mr. chairman, as my colleague, deputy assistant secretary, george kent, described, we have a national security policy, a national defense policy that identifies russia and china as adversaries. the russians are violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that they committed to that actually kept the peace in europe for nearly 70 years. until they invaded ukraine in 2014, they had abided by sovereignty of -- sovereignty of nations, of inviability of borders. that rule of law, that order that kept the peace in europe

and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in europe was violated by the russians. if we don't push back on that, on those violations, then that will continue. that, mr. chairman, affects us, it affects the world that we live in, that our children will grow up in and our grandchildren. this affects the kind of world that we want to see overall. so that affects our national interests very directly. ukraine is on the front line of that -- of that conflict. >> i want to thank you both for your decades of service to the country and now recognize mr. goldman for questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador taylor, on the heels of your discussing the importance of the security assistance to ukraine, i want to go to the end of the timeline, where you learned that that security assistance was

conditioned on ukraine announcing the investigations that the president wanted. in particular, on september 9th of this year, you texted ambassador sondland and volcker, and the text message should be on the screen in front of you. if you could read what you wrote? >> as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. >> what did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy? >> mr. goldman, i meant that the important -- because of the importance of security assistance that we had just described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important that security assistance was so important for ukraine as well as our own national interests to withhold that assistance for no good

reason other than help with a political campaign, made no sense. it was counter-productive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical. it could not be explained, it was crazy. >> when you say all of what we were trying to do, what do you mean by "we"? >> i mean that the united states was trying to support ukraine as a front line state against russian attack and again the whole notion of a rules-based order was being threatened by the russians in ukraine. so our security assistance was designed to support ukraine. that's -- it was not just the united states, it was all of our allies. >> when you reference help with a political campaign in this text message, what did you mean? >> i meant that the investigation of burisma and the bidens was clearly identified by

mr. guiliani in public for months. as way to get information on the two bidens. >> that investigation at the very least was mentioned by president trump in the july 25th phone call with president zelensky, is that right? >> as we now know, september 25th, that transcript was released. >> ambassador taylor, in your decades of military service and diplomatic service representing the united states around the world, have you ever seen another example of foreign aid conditioned on the personal or political interests of the president of the united states? >> no, mr. goldman, i have not. >> mr. kent, that vital military assistance that was not the only thing that president trump was withholding from ukraine, what

els was contingent on ukraine initiating these investigations? >> as we talked earlier today, the possibility of a white house meeting was being held contingent to an announcement. >> how important to president zelensky was a white house meeting? >> new leaders, particularly countries that are trying to have good footing in the international arena, see a meeting with the u.s. president in the oval office at the white house as the ultimate sign of endorsement and support from the united states. >> president zelensky was a relatively new president, the is that right? >> that's correct. he was elected april 21st and his government was formed after parliamentary elections in july. >> would a white house meeting for president zelensky boost his legitimacy as a president in ukraine? >> it would primarily boost his leverage to negotiate with vladimir putin about the russian

occupation of 7% of ukrainian territory. >> mr. president, is pressuring ukraine what i believe you called political investigations, a part of u.s. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in ukraine and around the world? >> it is not. >> is it in the national interests of the united states? >> in my opinion, it is not. >> why not? >> because our policies, particularly promoting the rule of law, are designed to help countries, and in eastern europe, central europe, that is overcoming the legacy of communism. the communist system in particular, the office was used to promote particular citizens not the rule of law and to help join the unity of nations and live lives of dignity, helping them have rule of law with strong institution is the purpose of our policy.

>> so, in other words, it is the purpose of our foreign policy to encourage foreign nations to refrain from conducting political investigations, is that right? >> correct. and in fact, as a matter of policy, not of programming, we oftentimes raise our concerns, usually in private, with countries that we feel are engaged in selective political prosecution and persecution of their opponents. >> ambassador taylor, now that we established you ultimately did understand that president trump was withholding the security assistance and the white house meeting from ukraine until they announced these investigations, to benefit his reelection campaign, let's go back a little bit in time to when you first learned about this conditionality. on september 1st, so a little more than a week before that text we just read, you sent another text to ambassador sondland and volcker, which should be also be on the screen in front of you.

if you could read what you wrote to them? >> are we now saying that security assistance and white house meeting are conditioned on investigations? >> ambassador sondland responded, call me. what information had you learned that prompted you to write this text message? >> i had learned in warsaw, after the meeting vice president pence had with president zelensky, ambassador sondland had had meetings there and had described to mr. yurmach, the stand to president zelensky, that the security assistance was

also held pending announcement by president zelensky in public of these investigations. before that, i had only understood from ambassador sondland that the white house meeting was conditioned. at this time, after i heard of this conversation, it struck me -- was clear to me that security assistance was also being held. >> you said previously you were alarmed to learn this. why were you alarmed? >> it's one thing to try to leverage a meeting in the white house. it's another thing, i thought, to leverage security assistance. security assistance to a country at war, dependent on both the

security assistance and the demonstration of support. it was -- it was much more alarming. the white house meeting was one thing, security assistance was much more alarming. >> now, ambassador taylor, in your opening statement you outlined a detailed timeline. in fact, we have a written copy here and you included some phrases and words in notations. did you take notes of this conversation on september 1st with ambassador sondland? >> i did. >> did you take notes related to most of the conversations, if not all of them, that you recited in your opening statement? >> all of them, mr. goldman. >> what are those quotations that you include in your opening statement reflect? >> they reflect my notes on the exact words that i heard on that call. so, it was -- if i put those in

quotes, that meant that those are the words used on that phone call or in that conversation. >> did you review those notes before you drafted your opening statement and came here to testify? >> i did. >> now, is that how for example, you remember ambassador sondland was on a train from paris to london during a call in july? >> that's correct. >> you are aware, i presume, that the state department has not provided those notes to the committee, is that right? >> i am aware. >> so we don't have the benefit of reviewing them to ask you these questions. >> correct. i understand they may be coming sooner or later. >> we would welcome that. >> you also testified earlier, ambassador sondland -- or ambassador taylor, that president trump had delegated some matters overseeing ukraine policy to ambassador sondland, who is a big in inaugural supporter of president trump

even though ukraine is not in his domain of the european union, is that right? >> several members -- several participants in the meeting, in the oval office with president trump, with the delegation to the inauguration of president zelensky, told me of that conversation, and it was at that meeting, as i understand it, from several participants, that president trump asked the participants to work with mr. guiliani on ukraine policy. >> did you come to understand that ambassador sondland had a direct line of communication into president trump? >> i did. >> and you testified, or rather in that text message, ambassador sondland says to call him after you wrote that. did you in fact call him? >> i did. >> what did he say to you?

>> he said that i had -- i was wrong about president trump's intent. that there was no quid pro quo. >> and but did he say anything after that? did he describe to you, i believe you said, i'll refresh your memory -- >> thank you. >> you mentioned something in your opening statement, you said that he said that everything, i believe, and you had that in quotes, was actually contingent on the initiation of these investigations. what did he mean by "everything"? >> the scope of what he meant by "everything," was the security assistance and the white house meeting. >> i believe you also testified he said he had made a mistake in relaying a message to the ukrainians. what was that mistake? >> the mistake he told me was earlier he had told, presumably

president zelensky and mr. yurmach, that what was necessary for the white house meeting was the pursuit of these investigations. he said he recognized that that was a mistake. it was not just the white house meeting that was dependent on the investigations, he said it was now everything. it included the security assistance. >> so, it was not just the white house meeting, it was also the security assistance? >> yes, sir. >> even though president trump was saying repeatedly that there is no quid pro quo, ambassador sondland relayed to you that the facts of the matter were that the white house meeting and the security assistance were conditioned on the announcement of these investigations. is that your understanding? >> that's my understanding. >> now, you reference a television interview, and a

desire for president trump to put zelensky in a public box, which you also have in quotes. was that in your notes? >> it was in my notes. >> what did you understand that to mean, to put zelensky in a public box? >> i understood that to mean that president trump, through ambassador sondland, was asking for president zelensky to very publicly commit to these investigations, that it was not sufficient to do this in private. this needed to be a very public statement. >> did you understand why it needed to be in public opposed to a private confirmation? >> no further information on that. >> now, during this time period in early september, did you come to understand that from your conversations with the ukrainians or other individuals, that ukraine felt pressure to

initiate these investigations because of the conditionality of the white house meeting and the security assistance? >> here's what i know. i got several questions. other officials got several questions as well, from ukrainians asking about the security assistance. what i know is the security assistance was very important to the ukrainians. they had begun to hear from ambassador sondland that the security assistance was not going to come until the investigations were pursued. what i heard from the defense minister, what the senators, what senator johnson and senator murphy heard in their conversation with president zelensky was the strong -- the clear concern, urgent concern ukrainians had about the security assistance. >> now, you also described a conversation that you had with

ambassador sondland a week later on september 8th. and in that conversation, in your opening statement, you described how ambassador sondland used the term, "stalemate," what did you understand the concern about a stalemate to be? 3 c3 el embajador gordon sondland what i understood in that meeting, the meaning of stalemate was security assistance would not come.

>> even though he said the words, there were no quid pro quo, he then went on to say, but the security assistance will not come unless these investigations are done, is that what you are saying? >> my understanding, that's what was meant by "stalemate." >> you also said in your opening statement a discussion about president trump being a businessman who wanted to have people pay up before signing the check. what did you understand that to mean? >> this was an explanation that ambassador sondland gave me about his understanding of president trump's thought process. ambassador sondland is a businessman, president trump is a businessman. he was explaining to me the

relationship, the understanding that a businessman would have when he is about to sign a check. by that, he clearly meant president trump was thinking about or had in front of him the possibility of providing security assistance to ukraine, it was similar to writing a check to someone who you're about to send. he used -- he used that used th very clearly to indicate that this would be -- this would require something. if that person owed him something, before he signed the check, he wanted to get, whatever he was owed paid back to him. and ambassador volcker used very similar language about a week later, which indicates to me that they had that conversation as well. >> did ukraine owe anything to the united states? >> mr. goldman, they didn't. they owed appreciation for the